דיני נטילת ידים
SMG
We learnt in Gemara[i] Rabbi Yitzĉok bar Asiyan said, washing hands in advance [of eating] is a Mitzva for two reasons, 1) because of the סרך תרומה, which Rashi explains is because people were careful to wash their hands even before eating mundane food, and therefore, those who eat Teruma were required to wash their hands prior to eating Teruma, where such washing is obligatory since the hands, prior to being washed are considered a secondary level of Tum’ah and make Teruma become פסול. 2) The second reason is because it is a Mitzva to obey the sages, who enacted this for cleanliness – and they[ii] correlated[1] this enactment with the verse[iii] והתקדשתם והייתם קדשים כי קדוש אני ה’ אלקיכם as follows:
- והתקדשתם corresponds to [the washing with] water before [the meal],
- והייתם קדשים corresponds to [the washing with] water after [the meal],
- כי קדוש corresponds to the oil, which Rashi explains there was a custom in those days to clean off their hands with oil prior to washing their hands after eating, and
- אני ה’ אלקיכם corresponds to the ברכה [which is said after a meal].
Also, the Gemara said there that just like someone who is dirty may not perform the service in the Base Hamikdash, so too one who has dirty hands may not recite the ברכה [after the meal].
This water [for washing hands] prior to the meal, since it is a Mitzva of Rabbinic origin, it requires a ברכה. Similarly, one who washes one’s hands, whether in preparation for the recital of Shema or for prayer, must recite the ברכה of אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על נטילת ידים, [The terminology used in the ברכה which states that G-d Almighty commanded us with the Mitzva, when the SMG just stated that this Mitzva is Rabbinic in origin requires an explanation, so the SMG notes] the G-d Almighty commanded us in the Torah to obey the sages {!}, as it says in the verse[iv] על פי התורה אשר יורוך. The water [used for washing hands] after [a meal] is an obligation, but does not require a ברכה since [this washing] is done as a protection to the body’s health, as the sages said[v] that with every meal, salt should be consumed, and there are places where the salt in use is sodomite salt[2] which blinds the eyes – when a person dips his finger in the salt and touches his eye[3]. We though are now in France, and do not have the custom of washing the hands after the meal because sodomite salt is not found here. Nor [is there a custom of] anointing the hands in oil. The correlation with the verse is just a correlation – and the hands are not considered dirty to the point where one would be unable to recite a ברכה since sodomite salt is not found among us.
Washing one’s hands during a meal is not obligatory. Rav Naĉman says[vi] this only applies to washing between different cooked dishes – and Rabeinu Yitzĉok explains that statement as talking about between a ‘meat’ dish and a ‘dairy’ dish[4], where neither meat nor dairy was present [in either dish] and the only reason one is rendered a ‘meat’ or ‘dairy’ dish is due to the taste present in the foods. But the washing between a ‘meat’ dish and cheese being eaten afterward is obligatory[5]. And the washing between cheese and meat does not require a ברכה since the washing is only the preparation to eat, like the removal of fat and salting of the meat.
What water may be used
Water used for washing one’s hands before [the meal] can be hot[6], or cold – and can be poured into a container or onto the ground. But the water after [the meal] may not be hot and may only be poured onto a vessel [and may not be poured onto the ground], as we said in the Gemara[vii].
We learnt in the Gemara there, that water which has been heated by [sun]light; Ĉizkiya said we do not use to wash with.[7] Rabbi Yoĉanan said we do, as he had asked Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbe – who was someone who ate food under the stringencies of Tahara rules – and he said that all the people of the Galil[8] would do so. And the Halaĉa follows Rabbi Yoĉanan since all the people of the Galil follow him. And Rabeinu Shlomo explained the argument between Ĉizkiya, and Rabbi Yoĉanan was only with regard to water which was not unbearably hot. And the law follows him since probably when the people of the Galil would use such water – it was not that hot[9].
We learnt in the Mishna[viii] that water, which is unfit for an animal to drink, like if it was dirty, or [sulfurous like] the hot springs of Teverya are פסול for washing the hands if they were drawn into a vessel. But in the ground, where they are found naturally – one may dip one’s hands into them, which is derived by an a fortiori argument; just like a body may be immersed in such water certainly the hands may. As for what was argued in the Gemara[ix] that if the water was undrinkable for a cow, then one may not immerse in it [in which case the a fortiori argument is false] – that argument establishes that the water was mixed with too much silt, or dirt [not that the water itself was bad water, which is why the cow wont drink from it – as it is too cloudy].
Water used by a baker to wash his hands due to dough [getting stuck on the hands] – that water may be recycled for washing.[10] But water used to dip pastries, or soak bread, or wash water used to clean utensils are פסול for use in washing the hands, as learnt[x] in the Mishna.
We also learnt there that if ink or coloring fell into the water rending its appearance changed, that water may not be used, because the water must have the appearance of water.
Is excessive washing permitted or necessary
Rav Naĉman said[xi] that one who washes his hands for fruit is haughty.[11] Rava though said it is permissible, and the Halaĉa follows Rava as he is later[12].
Ravina ruled[xii] that a person may wash one’s hands in the morning to be counted towards the entire day. Some say this is only when there are no options – and if after making that condition additional water became available, he must wash normally [before eating], and some say [this ruling] applies even when not under emergency circumstances. Traveling is considered to be an emergency circumstance. If after making this condition in the morning, additional water became available, one should not recite the ברכה.
What needs to be washed
Our Rabbis taught that ‘washing the hands for mundane food must cover the hand up to the wrist, and for Teruma up to the wrist, and for the service in the Base Hamikdash up to the wrist.’ The term used in the Braissa is הפרק, which while we have translated this consistently as wrist, it actually means ‘section’ and thus it is unclear[13] if the Beraissa meant the same section for each time one is required to wash the hands – namely the wrist – or if there was some other section which was meant. And since he heard from his teacher each [rule] on its own – [meaning] when he heard [the ruling for] each case, it was stated individually, and then when he heard the Beraissa with all three cases perhaps each one was repeated as an individual statement, or perhaps they were [listed together as individuals] because the measurement for this is not the same as the measurement for that, and each one has its own section [which needs to be washed]; the section [that needs to be washed] when sanctifying the hands and feet [of the Kohanim, prior to their service in the Base Hamikdash] is explained to be the entire hand[14], including the fourth section[15], which is proven in the Gemara[xiii] but elsewhere the Gemara[xiv] records the argument of Rav where the washing for Teruma must include the entire hand, just as the sanctification prior to service, while washing for mundane food, that only needs to be up to the middle of the hand – the third section of the hand where all the fingers are tied together to the thickness of the hand.[16] This is also how the Yerushalmi[xv] wrote, ‘for mundane foods [one needs to wash] up to the knuckles of the hand’ which is the third segment where all the fingers are tied together. Shmuel says that both mundane and Teruma food [is treated that same], and one is required to wash the entire hand, just like the requirement when sanctifying one’s hands and feet [for service in the Base Hamikdash.] This is what is written in the book והזהיר. Shmuel said that for mundane food, the entire hand [must be washed], and Rav Sheshes said the term ‘עד כאן’ which was used in the Beraissa to apply to both mundane food and Teruma is meant to imply a leniency – meaning, according to Rav Sheshes, he explains the Beraissa that the section [one needs to wash until] is the third section, where the fingers are tied together. And the Halaĉa follows Shmuel since Rav Ami rules like him. Also, Rabbi M’yasha bar bray (grandson) of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi had this opinion. This was the explanation of Rabeinu Yitzĉok son of Rabbi Avraham – and it is the main [explanation]. This was also the explanation provided by the Aroĉ on the term מי [17] which is explained here with regard to the water before [eating the meal].
Barriers to washing
We learnt[xvi] that anything which forms a barrier with regard to immersion [in a Mikva – see positive Mitzva 248] forms a barrier with regard to washing the hands, as Tosefos explained – this applies to eating mundane food. As for what the Tosefta[xvii] taught that everything which forms a barrier for [the immersion of] vessels, forms a barrier for the [immersion of the] Nida and the convert while they are immersed – but for mundane food, this does not form a barrier: that is talking about washing that is done to be able to touch mundane food with the same level of Tahara required for Teruma.
We learnt in that Tosefta, that excrement under the nail,[18] which was not where the meat is[19] and the mud and food particles which are under the nail, even where the meat is – those do form a barrier [against washing]. Rabeinu Yaakov explains that this is talking about mud which is similar to dough, which is very sticky – like the mud of the craftsmen [cement or glue], which is why we learnt in the Mishna[xviii] a list of things which do not form a barrier, among which is excrement under the nail [which Mishna must not be talking about excrement which is stuck to the nail, but is easily washed off]. And even with regard to mud or dough, if it is in a small quantity that a person doesn’t care that it is there, that does not form a barrier. Similarly, the book התרומה writes that a scab on a wound, which has not dried and about which he is not concerned, or a scab that bothers him [it itches] does not form a barrier [for washing the hands], even though we are accustomed to removing those from the entire body when immersing – that is only a stringency [that was adopted].
Washing vs Immersion
Rav said, a pipe which draws water – meaning an irrigation pipe – we do not wash our hands using it; meaning, as Rashi explains, we do not place our hands in the pipe and let the water wash them, because that does not satisfy neither the requirement to wash the hands, nor the alternative method of immersion. [The reason it] doesn’t satisfy the requirements for immersion is because the water is ‘drawn water’, and the reason it doesn’t satisfy the requirements for washing is because washing must be done using human power [and here it is gravity which moves the water]. However, if he puts his hand close to where the bucket[20] pours, and the water showers from the place it pours onto his hands, that would satisfy the requirement that the hands be washed with human power – and that is sufficient. And if the bucket which pours [into the pipe] has a hole at its end, in which water can pour – [meaning] that the hole in which water enters is larger, and the spray which comes from the bucket is visible, and the one who pours does so through its mouth into the pipe, while the hole showers from behind[21] into the river – this stream connects the bucket to the river is if it was still in the river, and the pouring of the bucket is as if it was directly from the river – then we can immerse one’s hands in the [water in the] pipe. This leniency only applies to immersing one’s hands, however, as far as the immersion of a person’s entire body [where immersion in a Mikva is required] one cannot use such a water-fed pipe for two reasons: 1) the stream is not a connection [for the purposes of a Mikva][xix], and 2) the mixing of Mikva’os requires a hole large enough like a שפופרת הנוד [large enough for two fingers to fully rotate within][xx]. As for the requirement that human power is needed [to wash hands], that is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosi[xxi]
‘water poured by anyone is kosher for washing one’s hands, even [if poured by] a deafmute, imbecile and minor. One may place the jug on one’s lap and wash [by tilting the jug], one may knock over a jug and wash, one may wash one’s hands using a monkey.[22]
Rabbi Yosi though forbids the final two cases.’
[Rabbi Yosi forbids in the cases of] a monkey pouring and a jug on its side, since the water is poured on its own. [This is not sufficient since] the water must be powered using human power. The sages though are not concerned with human power, but with the power of the vessel [which will be explained momentarily]. It would seem that both {@} opinions derive [the requirements for washing hands] from the Key’or from which the Kohanim would wash their hands. This was a vessel, and accordingly, the sages said there was no human power, only the power of the vessel. Rabbi Yosi learns from the verse[xxii] והזה הטהר על הטמא where human power was required, and this applies to rendering the hands טהור. Nevertheless, we [also] need the power of a vessel since we learn from the washing of the hands from the Key’or,[23] and it is possible that the Key’or also functioned using human power since it had holes on the side like kegs, with faucets installed in them, and when a [Kohen] wanted to sanctify his hands, he would pull on the faucet and the first spray which came out through the pulling on the faucet is considered to be human-powered. And then he would plug the faucet back into the hole and then pull it again. We can learn that since Rav holds like the opinion of Rabbi Yosi, that is the Halaĉa. And in the BHG he rules that it is permissible to immerse one’s hands in a vessel, proof of which is from what we said in the Gemara[xxiii] ‘would it be permissible to sanctify the hands and feet in the Key’or itself [meaning without drawing the water out of the Key’or]. Since Hashem uses the term[xxiv] [ורחצו אהרן ובניו] ממנו, which means ‘from it’ and not בתוכו, ‘in it’, or perhaps [that is not conclusive, and] one can even immerse in it.’ This question was not answered in the Gemara, which implies[24] that the questioner is only asking about sanctifying [the hands and feet], since with regard to that the verse says ממנו. However, with regard to washing one’s hands, even immersion is permitted.
Seemingly, this is not a proof [with regard to being permitted to immerse hands in lieu of washing them], since the questioner is asking this based on the opinion of the sages, who [derived the requirement on how to wash one’s hands from the usage of the Key’or, and] are not concerned with human power. Even according to them, they would forbid the immersion in the Key’or since there is a verse ממנו.
When a person dips his hands into a river [when it is impossible to properly wash] he recites the ברכה of על שטיפת ידים or על טבילת ידים. One only recites the ברכה of על נטילת ידים when washing by means of a utensil.[25]
And one must pour the water onto the hands twice,[26] once to render the hands טהור, and once to render the water on the hands טהור. This is proven in many places in the tractate of ידים. The first [pouring] does not really count – water should actually be poured three (3) times, since that first time is only to remove dirt and anything that might be a separation [between the hands and the water] from the hand.
About the vessel in use
Rava stated[xxv] that a vessel which was pierced with a hole the size of which liquid may be poured in thereby, it may not be used to wash one’s hands – because it does not meet the requirements of a vessel[27]. Even if the hole is above the level necessary to retain a רביעית of water. My master wrote[xxvi] that Rabeinu Yitzĉok was accustomed to [abide by this ruling] even with vessels intended for washing – even though this measurement was only mentioned in the Gemara[xxvii] with regard to earthenware vessels. If the hole pierced the vessel on its side, in a diameter less than the size needed to be used for pouring in liquid, and it still retains sufficient room in the interior below the hole to contain a רביעית of water, and when used, the water pours out through the hole – one’s hands are rendered טהור thereby. However, if one used the water which passed over the hole and falls out of the vessel over the edge – that is פסול since the water passed over the hole. Once the water does so, it is no longer within the vessel [and therefore one is not using a vessel to wash one’s hands – which is one of the requirements of the Mitzva]. Since, from the hole and beyond [above – that section] does not meet the requirements of being a vessel. Only the part below the hole is considered to be a vessel – since the hole is not [big enough] to be used for pouring in water.
We learnt in the Mishna[xxviii] all the vessels may be used for washing hands even vessels of dried dung[28], vessels of stones, and vessels of earth. We may not use the walls of the vessels, nor the rim of the boundaries nor the staves of the barrel since they do not contain a רביעית and less they are propped against something, because they do not rest unless they are leaning. And one should not give water to his friend cupped in the palm of his hands, since we do not fill, sanctify, sprinkle the waters of the red cow, or wash one’s hands – unless by means of a vessel.
We learnt[xxix] strips of leather which have a receptacle may be used to wash the hands. Sacks and boxes, even though they are used as containers may not be used to wash the hands since the purpose[29] of the sack and box is not to hold water, since the majority do not hold water.
It is permissible to accept water from a Gentile or a Nida. As for what was taught in the Tosefta[xxx] ‘Rabbi Meir says anything that does not render water טמא by means of carrying is kosher for use with one’s hands – and anything that does render [water] טמא by means of carrying may not be used to wash one’s hands. However, Rabbi Yehudah argues with him, and the Halaĉa follows Rabbi Yehudah.’ This stringency by Rabbi Meir only applies to usage for Teruma and other things which must remain [xxxi]טהור.
When washing has not been done
A person who has not washed is forbidden to eat with gloves, meaning to place a napkin around his hands and eat – as a precaution against possibly touching the food. And the Halaĉa is[xxxii] that a person who eats by being fed, the person eating must wash as a precaution against touching the food, but the person feeding need not wash[30].
We learnt in the Gemara[xxxiii] that our sages taught that the Halaĉa with regard to interrupting a meal to urinate is, one need only wash one hand and then may enter. Rashi explains there this hand is the one in use in the bathroom, since Rav Ashi had said previously that it is a Mitzva to rub off the drops which splashed onto his feet so that he should not appear as if he was castrated[31]. If [while on bathroom break] he spoke with his friend or took a long time – which Rashi defines as an hour or two – he must wash both his hands [prior to returning to the meal] since he might not have kept his intention on the meal [and on keeping his hands clean]. Rabeinu Yaakov ruled there that a person who leaves the meal to urinate, need not wash his hands at all, unless he used his hands to rub. Therefore, even if he did use his hands to rub – and therefore needs to wash that hand – he need not recite another ברכה just like with the case of a person who had mud on his hands, or filth under his fingernails, where he does not have to recite a ברכה when washing his hands. Rabeinu Meir would not even recite the ברכה of אשר יצר after using the bathroom[32], however Rabeinu Yitzĉok did accustom himself to reciting that ברכה.
After washing the hands
We learnt in the Tosefta[xxxiv] one who washes his hand must rub[33] his hands.[34]
One who washes his hands must dry them first before eating. And Rabbi Avahu said[xxxv] that anyone who eats without drying the hands is as if he is eating from טמא food. I [the SMG] saw in the Tosefta[xxxvi] that one who dips one’s hands [into water] need not raise his hands[35] [while reciting the ברכה] nor must he dry his hands.
We have said in the Gemara[xxxvii] after washing one’s hands prior to eating, one must raise his hands upward[36] before the water has dripped off the wrist – which the Aroĉ explains means that one must ensure that the water does not flow down the arm which has not been washed, which is outside the wrist, and then [if one is not careful to raise his hands] they could flow back to touch the hand and return Tum’ah to the hand. When washing hands after eating, one must tilt the hands downward in order to have the salted water flow off the hand. In the Mishna[xxxviii] we were taught that if one washed his hands prior to eating including the wrist, or if he washed his hands after eating up until the wrist, and the water flowed back on to the hands, the hands are rendered טמא. That is the version [of the Mishna] that Rashi has. And that is how it was quoted in the book[xxxix] התרומה. However, in the order of the Mishna, it says that ‘water becomes טמא and טהור up to the wrist – for example, if the first pour was up to the wrist, and the second pour after the wrist, and the water flowed back to the hands, the hands are טהור. If he washed both the first and second pour above the wrist, and the water flowed back onto the hands, his hands are טמא. Meaning, that according to that version, the hands do not become טמא from the water which washed up to the wrist. But water that touched above the wrist [on the second pour] is טהור. Similarly, the second pour does not render טהור the water from the first pour which was poured above the wrist unless that water remained from the wrist and downward. But if the water fell on them from above the wrist, it does not render the hands טהור. In both stanzas of the Mishna, we are talking about when a person at first washed the hands below the wrist and then afterward the water flowed onto the arm. Therefore, in the first stanza of the Mishna, the person’s hands are טהור since the second pour is the only water that went above the wrist, and while on the wrist, the water did not become טמא. But the second stanza where the טמא water went above the wrist and then the second pour that came afterward does not render that water טהור as we have explained – therefore, when the water returns and flows back down onto the hand, it renders the hand טמא. This is the opinion used by Rabeinu Shimshon to explain the Mishna.
We also learnt there, that if the first pour was only used for one hand, and then the second pour was for both hands, the hand which did not get washed in the first pour renders the other hand טמא. Furthermore, we learnt there that if one washed one hand, and rubbed it on the other hand, it is טמא. The proper way to do this is to rub from the water on one hand when it received the second pour onto the other hand which would be the third instance of water on that hand – and do not allow one hand to touch the other until poured on both hands. Alternatively, one may pour [from the vessel] a third pour on both hands simultaneously.[37]
We also learnt there[xl] that if one washed one hand by pouring once, his hand is טהור. Meaning this case is about a person who removed all dirt and anything that forms a barrier to the water, and now needs to pour water twice. Instead, he did one very large pouring with enough water for two pourings – his hand is טהור. If he washed both hands with one pouring, Rabbi Meir renders the hands טמא until he takes a רביעית of water; meaning, even though we learnt water in sufficient volume equal to a רביעית can be used to the hand in a single pour, [here] even though he is washing both hands since when the pouring started there was a רביעית in the vessel [that is sufficient to render the hands טהור]. This only applies when pouring twice [i.e., he pours one pour on both hands together, and then the second pouring one both hands together again], but when pouring only once, there has to be enough water equivalent to a רביעית for both hands.
Discussion
Historical Sources
Although this Mitzva is Rabbinic in source, we do find an example of this twice in the Torah – with regard to the angels visiting both Avrohom and his nephew Lot. Both of whom insisted that the angels wash before eating – although, in those cases, since the angels appeared to be arabs, both Avrohom and Lot insisted that they wash their hands and feet, to remove the filth of their presumed idolatry.
on the requirement to wash using human kinetic power
{@} Not only does the SMG use the plural למדים here, but he doubles down and states ששניהם למדים – and yet, a few lines later, the SMG states that Rabbi Yosi derives his opinion from the verse, and not the Key’or…
The SMG discusses the derivation of the rules for washing from the use of the Key’or. Unlike the Base Hamikdash, which used the Yam Shel Shlomo, the Mishkan used the Key’or and its Kano. As to what these are, they were the only items required for the Mishkan which dimensions were not provided for. The reason for this is that its formation was completely dependent on what materials would be donated for its use, and thus was not dictated in advance by Hashem. The materials donated were the copper mirrors used by the women in Egypt for ensuring they were beautiful and attractive for their husbands, who after a long and brutal day of slavery needed all the encouragement they could get, in order to function at night and produce the next generation of Jewish people. It was those mirrors which were fashioned into the Key’or.
Rashi[xli] describes the Key’or as ‘a large keg with spouts, with water spraying out of their opening.’ The Kano is described as translated by Unkelos – a seat[38] prepared for the Key’or.
Presumably the purpose of the seat was because it would be impossible for the Kohanim to stand while sanctifying their hands and feet, which as Rashi[xlii] comments, based on the Gemara[xliii] occurred as follows: the Kohanim would place their right hand on their right foot, and the left hand on the left foot, ומקדש – and sanctify them.
Based on this, there is a simple question that needs to be asked. Didn’t the Levi’im wash the hands and feet of the Kohanim? Since both hands were occupied in the position of holding their feet, they could not manipulate the Key’or to wash (which is why the Kano existed so that the Kohanim wouldn’t topple over when placing their hands on their corresponding feet) – which would mean the Levi’im would do so, and in fact, it is based on this that the Levi’im to this day wash the hands of the Kohanim before they recite the Kohanic blessing [see positive Mitzva 175 and positive Mitzva 20]. How then can the sages derive that human power is not required?
Since this is a service in the Base Hamikdash, the only way this could be done by a non-Kohen is if the action performed by the non-Kohen were not a required component of the service.
This follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosi who derives from the verse [which speaks about the sprinkling down with the ashes of the red cow – see positive Mitzva 233] which teaches us that anyone (so long as they themselves are טהור, have the proper mindset, and are male) may sprinkle the water, since the act of sprinkling itself is not a part of the service that creates the ashes of the red cow. Similarly, the pouring of the water from the Key’or onto the hands and feet of the Kohanim is not a part of the service in the Base Hamikdash and can be performed by any male with proper mindset who is not טמא. Since this was not a service being performed, there was no problem with sitting. The Gemara only asks with regard to the opinion of the sages, that do not require human power, there is no need for them to hold that this was not a part of the service, and therefore the Kohanim would be required to stand – which explains why their opinion is that the placed their hands and feet in a manner which allowed them to stand albeit bent over.
This explains why the SMG notes that both the sages and Rabbi Yosi derive their opinion with regard to whether human power is required when washing hands from the Key’or, while Rabbi Yosi also derives his opinion from the verse.
[1] On the verse [Beraishis 25:34] ויאכל וישת ויקם וילך ויבז עשו את הבכרה the classic lesson taught to children in Ĉeder regarding how not to behave like Esav goes as follows:
- ויאכל – and he ate without washing his hands
- וישת – and he drank without reciting a ברכה before eating
- ויקם – and he got up without reciting the ברכה after eating
- וילך – and he left without kissing the Mezuza
- ויבז עשו – and [this proves] Esav despised serving Hashem.
[2] Sodomite salt is a reference to salt from the area where S’dom once was before being overturned by G-d Almighty for being too evil. Midrashically, the requirement to purge such evil from the materials that are supposed to represent to power to preserve life is the source for this law.
From the plan meaning of the text, we are obviously talking about a specific type of salt, not just a Midrashic lesson.
As to what this salt is, we have a few facts which the SMG notes (as do other commentators):
- The salt is dangerous even in contact with the skin, but especially the eyes. Regular salt, while it is painful to the eyes, is not particularly dangerous.
- It is something that automatically renders the hands dirty, and when not in use, the hands are not dirty.
- This type of salt is not commonly found in France but would have been commonly found in Israel.
Salt would presumably have been obtained from the area of the Dead Sea during the times of the Mishna, which is also the area associated with the former city states of S’dom. Present there are also many sulfuric hot springs.
From these clues, I think we can safely assume that ‘Sodomite Salt’ is a reference to Halite which occurred together with mineral deposits of sulfate (which are salts of sulfuric acid).
[3] [α] [The SMG would rather start by elucidating a verse, which is why the SMG notes the reasoning provided by Rabbi Yitzchok bar Asiyan first.]
[4] [β] This follows the opinion of Rabeinu Tam who holds that cheese is permitted after meat so long as the mouth is brushed clean. And this is the reason why he [the SMG] writes that it is permissible in certain circumstances even without brushing and cleaning the teeth.
However, [according to] those who write it is forbidden within the same meal to eat cheese after meat, even with brushing and cleaning the teeth, then here too it would not be permitted [simply by washing the hands] – unless one [also] cleaned and brushed the teeth. This is also apparent from the words of the SMK who requires cleaning and brushing the teeth.
All this applies according to Rabeinu Tam and those upon whom he relies, who explain [the Gemara] as talking about between two dishes within the same meal.
The Rashbam though writes that it is prohibited to eat cheese after a ‘meat’ dish until the next meal. This is also the opinion brought by the Rosh. Even the Mahari’I who writes a leniency, nevertheless followed the custom to be strict in this matter not to eat cheese even after only eating a ‘meat’ dish.
[5] The washing being the start of a new meal since it is forbidden to eat milk and meat in the same meal, even when the materials in the mouth has been sufficiently cleaned, and a sufficient time has elapsed so as not to experience any regurgitation of taste from the prior food.
[6] Rav Yitzĉok bar Yosef clarified this in the name of Rabbi Yan’aye that when the Beraissa there states the washing can be done with hot water, it means less than יד סולדת, which is greater than the temperature at which the hands can comfortably remain in the water. See Denouement for a discussion on the various measurements. To clarify, the Beraissa is thus stating that one need not use cold water.
[7] [γ] [The reason not to use hot water is because of the ‘flickering of the hands’ – people will remove their hands too quickly to allow for them to be washed properly.]
[8] After the Roman genocidal massacres, many of the Israeli Jews escaped to the North. This territory is called the Galil.
[9] Winter gets cold in the mountains of the north.
[10] [ϗ] See responsa 95 by Maharshal.
[11] [δ] [This is only talking about when the hands were clean. But if they were dirty, one can of course wash them without being considered haughty by anyone.] This is how the Rambam and the Tur ruled, unlike the book [the SMG doesn’t qualify the statement of the previous sage, but instead notes we do not follow his opinion, as an Amora from a later period disagreed with that.]
[12] As noted in the Introduction, the Halaĉa follows the later authorities within the same generational span since it is assumed they access to the prior rulings and reasonings, while the earlier authorities did not.
[13] It is unclear because although the Beraissa uses the same term for each, it also lists each as a separate case – which would usually be done when the rules for the different cases were different one from another, as the SMG goes on to explain.
[14] With regard to the feet, that means up to the ankle, including the heel.
[15] For the purposes of the discussion above, the hand is divided into sections or segments; the segments where the fingers move as individuals is segments one and two. The segment where the fingers become indistinguishable one from another to the onlooker is the third segment – which together with the first two segments form the ‘hand’. The fourth segment is the segment where the hand connects to the arm, which is where the wrist bones are located.
As the thumb does not contain the same number of bones as do the other fingers, one could argue as to where the thumb joins the other fingers. It is my belief that the section of the hand called the palm on one side is the segment which joins all fingers together, and accordingly, the fact that the thumb is missing the second bone, and the fact that the bone within the hand can move somewhat, while the bones of the other fingers within the hand cannot – is irrelevant.
[16] [ε] the opinion of Rav is thus that certainly each one would have his own measurement, but it seems illogical for him to say that he heard from his teacher that everyone has his own measurement. As for why Teruma and the sanctification of their hands have the same measurement, that is what the Beraissa explains; that washing for Teruma is until the end of the hand – and what is that, that would be the same place defined for the sanctification of the hands. That point on the hand [the wrist] is explained by the sanctification of the hands, which was not explained by Teruma and washing for regular foods.
[17] [ζ] The Rosh argues and writes that one need [only] wash the knuckles of the fingers. See there.
[18] [η] Just like there is a difference in whether the excrement is stuck well, or not – so too the same with any kind of mud.
[19] Meaning a person with long nails whose nails got filthy under the nail, but not in the area where the nail bed meets the finger.
[20] The bucket referenced is that of a simple pump in which water from the river fills a pump, and then is tilted into the pipe which sends the water to the field. We are assuming the pump action is being performed by a human, and at the point where the water moves from the bucket to the pipe, it is still moving under human power. Once the water is part of the irrigation pipe system though, it is no longer moving under human power and can’t be used to wash one’s hands.
[21] Here the SMG is describing a bucket with a sufficiently large enough hole to almost be considered a funnel (less than two fingers width). While the funnel has a hole at the bottom, since the hole is narrow, all the water does not immediately escape back into the river, and although water is streaming from the funnel to the river, he is also capable of pouring the majority of the water into the pipe.
[22] What about having one’s hands washed by a human who himself had not yet washed but is only touching the vessel and not the water. Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha stated, ‘there are three things that Suri’el, the angel of the interior, told me: 1) do not take your clothing in the morning from a servant and put it on [don’t be dressed by a servant in the morning], 2) do not allow your hands to be washed by someone who hasn’t washed, and 3) only give back the cup of Asparagus [not the vegetable. Based on the context this appears to be some kind of alcoholic beverage] to the person who gave it to you. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi reported a slightly different instruction from the angel of death, who told him a different number 3), namely ‘do not stand in front of the women when they are returning from a burial. [In fact, our practice is that the men stand off to the side and do not form both rows when women are going back from the burial].
[23] [θ] [Meaning since we are looking to derive from the usage of the Key’or that one is required to pour the water using a utensil – there is a different dissimilarity between the usage of the Key’or and the requirements involved in washing the hands – the Key’or did not use human power, while washing the hands does require human power. The answer being it had spigots – and thus even though the requirements for washing the hands are not directly derived from the verse, it is still comparable.
However, according to the sages who derive from the usage of the Key’or that one does not require human power in washing the hands, then presumably there were no spigots on the Key’or, and it was utilized by means of immersing the hands (and feet?) of the Kohanim. Nevertheless, they still require human power in washing the hands, because it is possible that someone else would go to the Key’or and, using a vessel (or perhaps tilting it?), would pour water from there onto the hands and feet of the Kohanim. But with regards to the rule that one can immerse one’s hands where there are no vessels, that is automatically understood as being acceptable, since that is how the Key’or was designed. These are the words of our sages, but they were not necessarily drawing the comparison for the purposes of identifying the Halaĉa.]
[24] The BHG seems to offer two rationales expressed as one idea here that the Gemara is only questioning the possibility of immersion for the sanctification of the hands and feet by the Kohanim. One, since the Gemara leaves the question unresolved – which would not be the case with regard to the Rabbinic Mitzva of washing one’s hands, and two, since the question is based on the verse, which would mean the concept under discussion is of Torah origin, not Rabbinic. Thus, it is really two aspects of the same rationale – the Gemara is discussing the Biblical requirement for Kohanim to wash their hands and feet, not the Rabbinic Mitzva to wash your hands.
[25] [ν] The Rashba argues (with the change in phrase of the ברכה) and indicates that ‘within two hundred is one hundred’. [Meaning the phrase על נטילת ידים means that the hands are being washed, which includes the concept of immersion.]
[26] [ι] That is why if your hands are clean, then you only need to pour twice. And that is what is clearly implied.
[27] Vessels are required to contain liquids, and this one can’t even collect it, let alone retain it properly. Rashi expands on this and adds that the pouring by means of this broken vessel is also insufficient because the water continues flowing from its source without stopping in the vessel and thus using the vessel does not constitute pouring by means of human powered effort. Nor does this count as dipping one’s hands in water, as there isn’t sufficient water.
[28] [μ] turd vessels must be made for that purpose to be used to wash hands.
[29] Unclear as to why the intent for sacks matters when the SMG doesn’t not state the intent matters for strips of leather. Perhaps we are talking here of sacks which are not waterproof, and thus although it holds water, it does so only temporarily.
[30] Because we aren’t concerned, that he will touch the food and use his fingers to feed the person without utensils. Obviously, if that is a possibility, he would be required to wash his hands, though would not recite a ברכה. Presumably, this is only with regard to hygiene. If the hands are clean, he need not wash even if there is a possibility that he might handle the food.
[31] Meaning he should not appear as if he has no ability to properly aim to avoid being splashed.
[32] As he would rely on the one said along with the other blessings reciting when rising in the morning.
[33] The term used is שפשוף, which the Rosh explains means to rub one hand against the other to wash them well. The term is derived etymologically from the translation of the word for grinding, which means that one doesn’t just touch one hand to the other but rubs them well so that they dry off by doing so.
[34] [κ] Meaning after washing the hands three (3) times.
[35] [ξ] As to the requirement to lift the hands, it seems that this is according to Rabbi Shimon who was quoted in the Gemara previously – and this seems to be Rashi’s opinion there as well.
[36] As it says, שאו ידיכם קדש וברכו, with the word שאו meaning to lift up.
[37] [λ] [The reason the hands are rubbed only after washing and the reason why multiple washings must be engaged is because the water when poured] above the wrist, will flow down and render טמא the hands. [And we wash away this water of the first washing] in case the water extended past the wrist and then returned to render the hand טמא, as we learnt in the tractate ידים – that we are required to have water [poured] over the hands twice; the first time to render the hands טהור, and the second time to render the water on the hands, which have become טמא by touching the hands [to be washed off with the second pouring].
There we learned that the [definition for] hands when rendered either טמא or טהור is until the wrist, meaning the decree that hands should be considered naturally a second degree of Tum’ah is from the wrist and below – which render Teruma פסול. And to render them טהור, [one must wash them] up to the wrist. If one washed the first and second time to the wrist, and then the water [left on the hands after the second pouring] returned to the hands, the hands remain טהור since the second [pour] has rendered טהור the water from the first [pouring]. If he poured the first time above the wrist, and the second time only up to the wrist, and then the water from above the wrist flowed down after the second pouring to touch the hands, the hands are rendered טמא thereby; meaning since the water from the first pouring was above the wrist and he wasn’t careful with the second pouring and didn’t wash up to the place where the first pouring reached, but only washed the second time up to the wrist – as required – and then the water from the first pouring flows down on to the hands, they render the hands טמא since that water from the first pouring was rendered טמא by contact with the hands, and the second pouring did not render the water from the first pouring טהור.
Therefore, practically, one must raise and tilt the hands upward so that the water from the first pouring flows down the arm and does not return to the hand to render it טמא.
According to that edition, Rashi also holds that opinion, but he provides a caveat that it is possible to render טהור the water that reaches above the wrist.
The Tur writes that washing does not help with rendering the water טהור, but only does so when the person dried off his hands.
[38] Gem. Zevaĉim 19b implies that it is forbidden to sit down while sanctifying the hands and feet. Either this prohibition relates to the Base Hamikdash only, and during the times of the Mishkan this was allowed, or the Gemara is not bound by the פשט. Rashi though follows the פשט, and from a simple reading of the text, it would imply that the Kano was meant to be used – accordingly, it could not be forbidden to sit down to do so.
Alternatively, Rashi’s term מושב and Unkelos’ term of בסיסה might be loose translations for a resting stool, in which case, this would imply that the Kohen washed the right side separate from the left side. While this is not a problem for Rashi, it would be a problem for Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Yehuda who holds there that the Kohen would place one hand on top of the other, and one foot on top of the other, and sanctify them thus. To explain how that is possible, the Gemara states that the Kohanim would lean on each other. It is unclear why the Gemara does not choose to state that according to Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Yehuda the Kano was in use for sitting – this would in fact answer the Gemara’s question if it was permissible to sit.
The Gemara instead answers this with the conjunction of לעמוד לשרת, which as explained later in positive Mitzva 20 is the source for the requirement to stand while serving in the Base Hamikdash. Since during the service there is a requirement to stand, it must mean that the sanctification of the hands and feet is one of the services performed.
In which case, we are left with the question according to the sages, why was the Kano made? We must say that according to the sages, the Kano was more like a footstool instead of a chair, which would mean the Kohanim washed one side and then the other, while balancing on the other foot.
[i] Gem. Ĉulin 105a
[ii] Gem. Beraĉos 53b
[iii] Amalgamation of Vayikra 11:44 & 20:7
[iv] Devarim 17:11
[v] Gem. Beraĉos 40a
[vi] Gem. Ĉulin 105b
[vii] Gem. Ĉulin 105a
[viii] Mishna Yada’yim 1:3
[ix] Gem. Zevaĉim 22a Tosefos מים & Gem. Ĉulin 106a Tosefos מים
[x] Yadayim 1:3
[xi] Gem. Ĉulin 106a
[xii] Gem. Ĉulin 106b
[xiii] Gem. Eraĉin 19b
[xiv] Gem. Ĉulin 106b
[xv] Yer. Beraĉos Aylu Hadvarim:2
[xvi] Gem. Ĉulin 106b
[xvii] Mishna Mikva’os 6:5
[xviii] Mishna Mikva’os 9:4
[xix] Gem. Gittin 16a
[xx] Mishna Mikva’os 6:7
[xxi] Mishna Yadayim 1:5
[xxii] Bamidbar 19:19
[xxiii] Gem. Zevaĉim 21a
[xxiv] Shemos 30:19 (Shemos 40:31 also contains that word, but Targum renders it as a reference to the date and accordingly it shouldn’t be used as the source reference for the SMG)
[xxv] Gem. Ĉulin 107a
[xxvi] Tosefos im Gem. Nida 49a
[xxvii] Gem. Shabbos 95b
[xxviii] Mishna Yadaim 1:2
[xxix] Gem. Ĉulin 107a
[xxx] Yadayim 1:6
[xxxi] Tosefos מערה – Gem. Nida 71b
[xxxii] Gem. Ĉulin 107b
[xxxiii] Gem. Yoma 30a
[xxxiv] Mishna Yada’im 1:2
[xxxv] Gem. Sota 4b
[xxxvi] Mishna Yada’im 2:1
[xxxvii] Gem. Sota 4b
[xxxviii] Mishna Yada’im 2:3
[xxxix] Chapter 78
[xl] Mishna Yada’im 2:1 & Gem. Gittin 15b
[xli] Shemos 30:18
[xlii] Shemos 30:19
[xliii] Gem. Zevaĉim 19b